Carrier, Aretas and Damascus

[maryhelena]

Yes, I agree. It's important to give up the idea that we can get to "facts" about ancient history, including that there was indeed a historical Jesus. On some things we can of course, but more often than not it comes down to a level of confidence about what is "more likely". That's where I see Bayes Theorem as a useful tool in helping to benchmark that level of confidence.

Now I cannot agree at this point because this is where I find people taking certain claims of probability way too far with respect to history, no matter how ancient. Historians of ancient times are very careful to get their facts right and to work with facts that can be established as facts. Without them there can be no history. No historian works entirely with probabilities.

Sure, on some things we can have facts to start off with, and those represent a baseline that historians can work from.

Yep, start with the facts, in this case, historical facts. After all, we are dealing with a narrative that contains reference to historical facts. (Luke 3.1 for example). The question then becomes what did the NT writers do, or what did they infer, what did they interpreted relative to their 'salvation' theory of Jewish history from these historical facts. How they composed their narrative around the historical facts they referenced is of interest. What mythology did did they use, what midrash, what prophetic interpretations etc - all have their part. But one can't let the literary composition of the narrative dominate the search for an understanding of the Jewish roots of early Christianity. In other words: We should not be putting the cart before the horse. The driving force is history, Jewish history, Hasmonean history.

If one was to discount historical facts as being relevant to the NT story - and prefer to view it's story as just a narrative of whatever colour, midrash, mythological, mystical theological - then by golly - shut the shop and go home....

[neilgodfrey]

Y . . . .
Sure, on some things we can have facts to start off with, and those represent a baseline that historians can work from.

Yep, start with the facts, in this case, historical facts. . . . .

Interesting. So if we "start off with facts" what come next?

[maryhelena]

Y . . . .
Sure, on some things we can have facts to start off with, and those represent a baseline that historians can work from.

Yep, start with the facts, in this case, historical facts. . . . .

Interesting. So if we "start off with facts" what come next?

Narrative.....

[maryhelena]

The New Testament figure of Paul preached in Corinth. In First Cor ch.15 he preached about the resurrection of the dead. Interesting is it not that Corinth itself experienced a 'resurrection' from the dead. A fitting city then to highlight or be an object lesson for the message of resurrection from the dead that Paul is preaching.

Ancient Corinth

Ancient Corinth was one of the largest and most important cities of Greece, with a population of 90,000 in 400 BC.[1] The Romans demolished Corinth in 146 BC, built a new city in its place in 44 BC, and later made it the provincial capital of Greece.

1 Cor. 15. 12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13. if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 .And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 .If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

[Paul the Uncertain]

There is nothing "probable" about the existence of the Roman Empire or Julius Caesar or the Jewish war of 66-70 (except at an abstract philosophical level that is meaningless vis a vis history as it is practiced.)

There is nothing interestingly probable about those things, not even for a probablilist. I like Isaac Levi's formulation of serious probability (as opposed to merely logically non-contradictory), but there are other ways to make the distinction.

That is, it is logically possible that there was no Julius Caesar, no Roman Empire for him to provoke the emergence of, and no Jewish War for that Empire to have fought in 66-70. But these logical possibilities are not serious possibilities. For nobody, not just not for historians.

(Lawyers, whose praises as doctoral-level reasoners about the human past I have sung elsewhere on the forum, would say that analysts can overlook "scrupulous doubt." Not quite the same concept, but it effectively achieves the same distinction as Levi.)

Historians don't ask: was there a Jewish war 66-70? they ask: what led to that war? or some other question that is in effect proposing a hypothesis about the fact of that war.

My reaction depends on what ask means. I recommend that any uncertain reasoner examine their assumptions, and I don't need any appeal to Bayes to advance that recommendation. That particular hypothesis will likely serve very well as an assumption.

In contrast, "Was there a historical Jesus?" might reward some contemplation.

Only in biblical studies have I seen "historians" declare that this or that event "probably" happened and use that as the basis of their historical reconstruction. Historians elsewhere roll their eyes at such "methods".

Granting everything you said is true, then OK, that's what historians don't do. In constrast, lawyers do it all the time.

So the guild errs in comparing themselves with historians, when they should be comparing themselves with other terminal-degree holding professional reasoners about the human past.

[neilgodfrey]

There was a case about historical truth -- historical facts -- in which lawyers were not there to argue the "probability" of the holocaust but the "historical factness" of it. Richard Evans, a noted historian, was called as a witness against the claims of David Irving.

"History wars" are a part of the culture in several countries: they do not argue about probabilities but about facts.

More than one lawyer has written a book using their experiences and skills as lawyers, they boast, to prove the resurrection is a historical fact of history. That's what "lawyers do" when they try their hand at history.

What historians do -- the questions they ask - is to try to explain the sources. What hypotheses best explain the sources? That's a different question from asking "Did the story of X in this source really happen?" And they build hypotheses to explain the events that explain the sources. The probabilities lie in those hypotheses. That's where probability enters genuine historical research.

[neilgodfrey]

What historians do -- the questions they ask - is to try to explain the sources. What hypotheses best explain the sources? That's a different question from asking "Did the story of X in this source really happen?"

A couple of excellent articles addressing this point:


Kosso, Peter. “Historical Evidence and Epistemic Justification: Thucydides as a Case Study.” History and Theory, vol. 32, no. 1, 1993, pp. 1–13, https://sci-hub.do/10.2307/2505326

---. “Observation of the Past.” History and Theory, vol. 31, no. 1, 1992, p. 21, https://sci-hub.do/10.2307/2505606

[Paul the Uncertain]

More than one lawyer has written a book using their experiences and skills as lawyers, they boast, to prove the resurrection is a historical fact of history. That's what "lawyers do" when they try their hand at history.

That's what more than one lawyer did, not necessarily what " 'lawyers do' ."

What historians do -- the questions they ask - is to try to explain the sources.

Agreed (I believe that there are quotable quotes to that effect, too). You and I also seem to agree that that is a different task from estimating what probably happened in the past.

"Did the story of X in this source really happen?"

Well-posed questions do not become ill-posed because some profession isn't interested in searching for the answers to those questions.

And those who follow that policy have no grounds for complaint when other vendors step forward to service the customers whose demand would otherwise remain unsatisfied - or not even attended to.

Thank you for those article references.

[neilgodfrey]

Well-posed questions do not become ill-posed because some profession isn't interested in searching for the answers to those questions.

Doctors for medicine, engineers for construction, historians for history: if we think as laypersons we can do better and know more than any in their respective fields with understanding the principles involved in those special fields....

I think you are saying you are wanting to follow an approach to learning that steps outside the principles of how historians work. My preference is to use and stick by the principles of historical research as understood by historians today.

[Paul the Uncertain]

Doctors for medicine

I don't know how you do things in Australia. In the United States, medical advice is professionally dispensed by physicians, physician's assistants, nurse practitioners, midwives, registered nurses, and in some cases, pharmacists (although not to the same extent as pharmacists are consulted in some places in Europe). Probably there are others I'm not thinking of, but you get the idea.

Which type of provider somebody consults depends in large part on what information or assistance is sought.

That seems to parallel the accommodation I am suggesting. If I have a question about the human past which a historian finds worthy of their attention, then I should consult a historian. But if I should happen to have some lesser question about the human past, one which historians find unworthy of their time or attention, then I'll have to seek my advice elsewhere or instead do without.

Why should I do without? What's the historians' objection if they don't sell what I want to buy and so I direct my custom to somebody who does sell it? I didn't remove them from the qualified vendor pool, they removed themselves.

if we think as laypersons we can do better and know more than any in their respective fields with understanding the principles involved in those special fields...

I suppose it would be churlish to point out the similarity between that and Professor McGrath's explanation of why people trained outside his special field should defer to him and his colleagues in the guild on Bible-related questions.

Regardless, directing my question to somebody willing and qualified to answer it is not a claim that I can do better or know more than anybody else about anything. Recognizing that a question is well-posed is not a competitive activity.